Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants. Full marriage equality is a basic human right.

Translate

Saturday, March 31, 2012

And now, some desk clearing. Here are some items of interest dealing with polyamory.

Deborah Anapol, Ph.D., author of Polyamory in the 21st Century, had another article at psychologytoday.com adapted from her book. It is "Group Marriage and the Future of the Family."
She asks who will take care of the children. She says...

Neither two-career nor single-parent families offer children full-time, loving caretakers, and quality day care is both scarce and expensive. Nanny's are a luxury out of reach for most families making up the 99 percent. Even at its best, full-time institutional care (including public schooling) cannot provide the individual attention, intimacy, flexibility, and opportunity for solitude that children need to realize their potential. Serial monogamy presents children as well as parents with a stressfully discontinuous family life. Meanwhile, an entire generation is at risk, as divorce is increasingly common fact of life.

So what to do?

Group marriages can mean a higher standard of living while consuming fewer resources. Intimate partners are more likely than friends or neighbors to feel comfortable sharing housing, transportation, appliances, and other resources. Even if partners don't live communally, they frequently share meals, help each other with household repairs and projects, and vacation together. This kind of cooperation helps provide a higher quality of life while reducing individual consumption as well as keeping people too busy to over-consume. Multiple partners also help in the renewal of our devastated human ecology by creating a sense of bonded community.
Group marriage may help provide siblings for children who would otherwise be lonely, only children. It can offer childless couples a low tech solution to the ever more common challenges of infertility. Multiple adult families can soften the ticking of the biological clock by providing older women the opportunity to raise and mother children conceived by a younger sister-wife. At the same time, polyamory helps overcome the apparent design flaw which mismatches ideal age range for pregnancy (20's) with ideal maturity and energy level for parenting (40's). As indigenous peoples know, it takes a village to raise a child!

Friday, March 30, 2012

I'll be the first to say this; I can't imagine being in a marriage in which my husband and I slept with people outside of our union.

That doesn't stop her from looking in to polyamorous married couples and writing about it, specifically with a question-and-answer session.

Can you be out about it with your family and friends?

We don't flaunt it, but we don't necessarily hide it. How we handle it also depends on who we are dealing with. My mom is a very conservative Christian who never understood. However, my 23 yr old daughter is aware and understands as well as my brother.

Allies are great people.

Do you feel it's an unfair stigma placed on you as well as other couples who choose this married lifestyle?

Somewhat, yes. Because being poly is so socially out of the norm from the monogamous minded population, it is often unimaginable to them. People tend to believe we love each other less if we are willing to allow our spouse to love someone else. I think it means we love each other more for the same reason.

Perspective can make all of the difference.
Chapman asks for the four biggest misconceptions about "the sexual married life you have chosen"...

1. Being polyamorous is the same thing as swinging. It is not. Swinging is typically casual, short term and non-committal. Being poly is realizing you can love and commit to more than one person. If you have a child, you will love that child with all your heart. When you have second child, can you not love that child with all your heart as well? Different as night and day they may be, but you love them tremendously for who they are. Love is not finite.

The second season of the television show Game of Thrones is upon us. Articles about the show invariably mention the consanguinamorous siblings and their secret affair.
Do you watch the series?
What do you think?

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Coleen Nolan’s advice column at mirror.co.uk got a question about whether or not something was incest…

My cousin and I are both 17 and were virgins until our holiday with his parents at a villa in Barbados.

He’s very handsome and as I fancied him. I deliberately made him sexually excited by asking him to rub sun oil over my body while we were sunbathing in the garden.

His parents were out, so no one could see us.

I pulled off his trunks and dared him to swim naked with me in the pool.

After telling him I was on the Pill, he realised what I had in mind and minutes later we lost our virginity, which felt wonderful.

Some would have us believe he did something wrong and “took advantage” of her. But isn't it better that they shared this experience with each other, people they care about and trust?

The next day when we were left alone again by his parents, we couldn’t resist doing it again when we were at the beach.

We had a good time together and are longing to see each other again, but my friends think sex with a cousin is incest and is wrong.

Her friends have adopted a ridiculous prejudice, or are jealous. They are free to not have sex with their cousins, and their cousins are free to turn them down. They should respect her choices, and her ability to seduce her cousin.

A 36-year-old Seymour man accused of fathering a child with a teenage relative in 2010 received a 10-year prison sentence Friday in Jackson Circuit Court.

“Teenage” can mean 13 or it can mean 19. That’s a big difference.

“You took advantage of a situation,” [Judge Bill] Vance told Buckner as he was imposing the sentence.

And…? A 36-year-old, whatever gender, can “take advantage” of consent for sex from an adult of any age, of whatever gender, without it being a criminal matter, or necessarily a bad thing. Vance no doubt “took advantage” of access to law school.

Buckner received two five-year prison terms after pleading guilty to two counts of incest, a Class C felony. The state agreed to dismiss a third count. He also received 284 days credit and 284 days of credit time.

Notice the charges were incest, not rape. If this was rape, he should have been prosecuted for rape. If this was consensual sex, this criminal case should never have existed in the first place.

Buckner said he was not a bad guy and that he wants to try to make things better for all involved, including the child he fathered.

Prosecuting someone for consensual sex no way helps their child. Notice that nothing is written about the child having any problem due to the consanguity of the parents.

Buckner said alcohol and post-traumatic stress from his time in Iraq with the military were factors in his actions.

If this was consensual sex, he should not have to offer any explanation.

The age of consent in Indiana is generally 16, though if Buckner was considered a custodian or guardian, he could be prosecuted if she was 16 or 17. But we don’t know her age, other than her been a teen. We only know that he was charged with “incest,” not any form of assault or molestation. That makes this look like consensual sex, in which case any prison sentence, especially ten years, is ridiculous. Is this any way to treat a war veteran?

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The way this is reported, it sounds like The Netherlands, known for progress in relationship rights equality, could be making a potential step backwards, although a minor one.

Marriages between cousins remain permitted in the Netherlands. Such marriages will be invalid only if they are forced, the cabinet decided Friday.

The cabinet plans to restrict marriage between cousins because it says often they are forced. However if there is no demonstrable element of force, the marriage can go ahead, the cabinet said on Friday.

Adults should be treated equally. No marriage should be forced, whether consanguineous or otherwise.

Marriages involving minors will be invalid. Marriages which took place abroad are currently recognized in the Netherlands. In the future, only if both partners have reached the age of 18 will these marriages be legal.

Age of consent laws are not the focus of this blog, other than that age of consent should be applied equally regarding marriage... if someone is at the age of consent in a jurisdiction, they should be free to consent regardless of sexual orientation. There are US states where, for example, a 17-year-old may legally marry, and it is disappointing that the Netherlands would not recognize such a marriage.

There will be limitations on polygamous marriage, whereby one man has several wives.

That's polygyny, just one form of polygamy. Polygamy can be three or more people of one gender or any combination of genders.

If a polygamous marriage that took place abroad is recognized in the Netherlands only the 'chief wife' is entitled to an automatic residence permit.

Families should not be split up by outsiders.

The Netherlands (and any other country) should take whatever reasonable steps to make sure no marriage is forced, while also adopting full marriage equality so that an adult is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without discrimination.

From Zimbabwe comes news that a man was criminally sentenced for consensual sex with his cousin. That's right... his cousin. Even in the US, we don't prosecute for that, though many states still deny cousins the freedom to marry. Just how exogamous does a relationship have to be before the sex police in Zimbabwe leave it alone?

They have a child together now.

They both plead guilty and he was given community service (better than prison, but still ridiculous), but her sentence was put off because of the baby, according to the article.

Why were resources wasted interfering with this relationship? They should be encouraged, not prosecuted, and if they want to be married, they should be allowed.

In a statement Monday Justice Minister and Attorney General Shirley Bond said the province believes the current laws banning polygamy are strong enough, based on a ruling in November by Chief Justice Robert Bauman who held up the constitutionality of the polygamy section of the Criminal Code.

After the ruling the province considered appealing the decision to the Supreme Court in the hopes of obtaining a stronger ruling that would apply across the country.

But Bond said that after reviewing Bauman's "comprehensive and compelling" decision, the government has decided against referring it to the higher court.

Abuse and involuntary confinement of innocents should be prosecuted.

Relationships between consenting adults should not be subject to prosecution, nor denied equality. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. One day, Canadians will look back and wonder that full marriage equality was denied.

The scientific method is an iffy means to vet love in Losing Control, the debut feature by biophysics student-turned-filmmaker Valerie Weiss. Though it's easy to imagine the pic's conceit making for a likeable mainstream rom-com, its execution is far too broad and unlikely to connect with viewers.

Here's the part relevant to this blog...

Cue the lineup of wacky would-be one-night-stands, ranging from crass yuppies to tantric freaks and one sensitive fella recruiting for a polyamorous homestead. Some of the potential romances hit amusing notes, but Weiss isn't invested in making any of them feel like a plausible encounter.

"Tantric freaks?" As in freaks in the demeaning sense, or does DeFore use "freaks" in the sense of someone being a serious enthusiast or practitioner?

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Under full marriage equality, marrying more than one person should not be a criminal matter. However, an existing marriage partner should be informed if their partner is marrying someone else, and should be free to divorce if she or he disapproves.

A woman contacted police to tell them that her husband had gone to Las Vegas and married another woman while he was still married to her, Edinburgh deputy police chief David Lutz said. She filed for divorce in February, but it has not been finalized.

Police obtained a marriage certificate from Nevada that showed that Penrod married a woman from Nineveh on March 2, Lutz said.

She had already filed for divorce. The only possible problem I see here is how the law splits up assets.

His new wife told police that the three of them had been living together and that they originally planned to live as polygamists after getting married in Las Vegas, Lutz said. His first wife told police that they separated in December after she learned of his relationship with the other woman, and that’s why she filed for divorce.

I wonder who is telling the truth? Was the first wife initially supportive of the relationship and later turned against it, using the law as revenge? Or did she have an agreement of monogamy with him that he violated? Was this cheating, or a polycule that disbanded? It is "she said vs. she said" as there is no quote from him in the article.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Much has been made recently of Paypal restrictions on content. Now, Myfreeforum,org, which has hosted two consanguinamory discussion forums to which I've linked PFI and the recent spin-off, is giving them the boot.

From an email...

I'm sorry to inform you that advertisers have become a lot tougher on subject matter and we will no longer be able to carry your forum.

Whether advertisers are actually pressuring them or not, we have no way of knowing, but my guess is that the staff of Myfreeforum.org wouldn't bother to go through the effort of chasing people away if advertisers weren't making scary noises. Nor would they have included this, if they were just trying to thwart free discussion of consanguinamory...

I can give you a free export of the forum, but in a weeks time I plan on suspending it.

The world needs more freedom to discuss and depict consensual sex, including consanguinamory, not less. Advertisers should get on the right side of history sooner rather than later and support relationship rights.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

In South Africa, a confessed murderess blames incestuous cheating by her husband for enraging her enough to commit murder. Emily Zodwa Zulu says her husband was having an affair with his sister. Whether they are full siblings, half-siblings, stepsiblings, or adopted siblings is not explained in this article at iol.co.za by Kamini Padayachee.

Last year Zulu pleaded guilty to the September 2010 murder of her sister-in-law, Sinenkosi Zulu, and the attempted murders of her mother-in-law, Dumazile Zulu, and brother-in-law, Khulekani Zulu.

According to her plea, the day before the murder, Zulu found out that her husband was having an affair with Sinenkosi.

As I’ve said repeatedly, while I fully support consanguinamory and polyamory, I do not support cheating. However, cheating should not be grounds for prosecution nor homicide. If what Zulu says is true, her husband cheated on her, but then she deprived a woman of life, and brothers of a sister and a mother of a daughter.

I would be interesting in hearing her husband’s side. Cheating could be minor in comparison to what Zulu did before. Or, maybe Zulu had been a good spouse.

After she left work at Mtunzini police station, she drove 200km to her sister-in-law’s home in Emahashini, Nongoma, and knocked on the door. When it was not opened, she began shooting at it with her service firearm.

She climbed through a window and shot and killed Sinenkosi. Khulekani was injured in the shooting.

Doesn’t all that indicate premeditation?

She said she had had a tumultuous relationship with her husband and had fled their home on several occasions because of “conflicts”.

As I hinted above, the marriage could have been dead or dying already. Honesty and clean breaks are ideal, but ridiculous anti-incest laws and prejudices don’t foster an atmosphere that promotes honesty when it comes to consanguinamory, and divorce can be mucho messy without such those added complications. For all we know, the husband could have been scared to take any open action, and now we know such fears would have been justified.

Correctional services officer Siduduzo Ntuli testified yesterday that Zulu had an anger management problem and that the victim’s family feared for their lives.

“The family are afraid of her and said she had not apologised to them,” said Ntuli.

He added that Zulu’s husband had obtained an interim protection order against his wife after she was released on bail in July last year.

I will be interested in seeing what sentence she gets.

The article does not cite any evidence that there was actually a consanguinamorous affair in this case, but then it does not cite any denial of such an affair. Maybe there wasn’t such an affair, maybe it started shortly before the shooting, maybe it was going on before the marriage. We just don’t know.

What we do know is that there are siblings who have intimacy that includes sexual contact, and they should not be forced by prejudice and laws to hide their love and to make them feel so pressured that they end up using other people as beards. If we allow adults, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, we’ll have happier people, more stability, and fewer problems with people hiding their true selves.

We also know that a consanguinamorous bond, especially between siblings, is extremely strong. If one existed in this case, Zulu was not going to be able to stop it any way except the way she did: murder. Someone who finds herself or himself in that position essentially has two choices… 1. leave the relationship or 2. agree to be secondary (at best) in a nonmonogamous arrangement. That is a big reason why the freedom to be honest is critical so that fewer people will end up in such a situation.

That said, if Crazy About Him plans on having children with her cousin, everything changes. She needs to be aware that the closer the relation, the more the risk for genetic problems in any biological children. In very rural isolated communities like mine, there are many children with intellectual delays due to genetic issues directly caused by the close biological relations of the parents who are first and second cousins.

Such issues are caused by genetic problems, regardless of the relation of the parents. If they didn’t have those genetic problems, it wouldn’t matter how close they were. Anyone planning to have children together should check in to their genetics first, if they are concerned about this.

Against it, Winnipeg wrote…

I'm against first cousins dating. I believe they can love each other very much, but my grandparents were first cousins and there were problems. Of their seven children, only the males could reproduce.

That was a problem with the grandparents, not all first cousins, and do they have proof it was genetic as opposed to something environmental, dietary, or viral?

It's illegal (most places) for a reason.

Where it is illegal, it is illegal because of the sex police, and such laws should be repealed. There have been many stupid laws over the years, and throwing up our hands and saying “It is illegal for a reason” is a pathetic way to handle civil rights. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, and family and friends should support that, and only object if someone is abusive or basically incompatible. For example, objecting because they are first cousins is the wrong way to go. If one beats the other, or one wants to raise kids and the other doesn’t, then it makes sense to say they should stay away from each other if they are looking for a monogamous partner.

Monday, March 19, 2012

At allafrica.com, Paul Y. Harry shares with Liberians “Ten Reasons Why Polygamy Is a Great Thing.” As stated, it is actually about polygyny (one male, multiple females). It is a heterosexist and gender-sexist piece; whether tongue-in-cheek or not, I don’t know. The truth that the opinion actually contains is applicable to all, not just heterosexual men. Some women like having multiple partners, too, and some men do not want polygamy with women, but other men, just as some women don’t want polygamy with men, but other women.

The polygamous freedom to marry is a great thing; full marriage equality is even better, but that is only possible with gender equality and by not discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation.

It got me thinking again about open relationships. Or rather whether we’ve come to a point where commonly held assumptions about what it means to be in a relationship aren’t really common. Are we finally really living in an open-minded age?

It does seem we are. Full marriage equality is going to happen; it is just a matter of when.

She then references Newt Gingrich and says he asked his wife for an open marriage. Asking a wife to stick around right after you’ve told her you’ve been cheating with one other specific woman and you want both of them isn’t asking for an open marriage. An open marriage is one in which the partners are open to new partners (and open with each other about that.)

Mutually consensual nonmonogamy should never be equated to cheating. Cheating can happen in supposedly monogamous relationships as well as nonmonogamous relationships.

In Australia, as in America, there is both ardent support for, and furious opposition to, gay and lesbian relationships. Extremities of opinion are nothing new, but the sensible consideration of equality is. Public discussion about whether queer love can expect to achieve the legitimacy formerly reserved for the heterosexual married marks the end of a suppressive era. It marks the beginning of a swing, here at least, in favour of unions formerly ignored or denied. But how far does the notion of marriage equality – to wit, relationship equality – extend? Far enough that open or polyamorous relationships will be similarly accepted as ‘OK’?

Let’s hope. The equality should extend to protecting the rights of adults to be themselves and to have consensual relationships with other adults without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination. That means regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, an adult should be free to be out of the closet as LGBT and to live accordingly with any consenting adults, free to be out of the closet as polyamorous and to live accordingly with any consenting adults, and free to be consanguinamorous.

The government this week tapped into the issue by funding a program aimed at addressing forced marriages.

Everyone, regardless of gender, should be free to not marry, and to divorce.

Let adults have the relationships they want. Don’t way to marry someone of the same gender? Don’t. Don’t want to have an open marriage? Don’t. Don’t want to have a polygamous marriage? Don’t. But do not try to stop others who want those things.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Much of the Canadian news media was complicit in the denial of rights by editorializing against full marriage equality during the recent poly trial. At least we have a sympathetic article now about John, Louise and Eric, although it is a little late.

John and Louise are legally married but have each other's permission to date other people, and John currently has a girlfriend. They also have one six-year-old son, and another 10-year-old son from John's previous marriage.

Louise is also in a relationship with Eric, and the three of them formalized their triad in a commitment ceremony in 2010. Eric, in turn, has a 13-year-old daughter from his previous marriage.

The three of them live in an East Side house with the six-year-old son and frequent visits from their other two children.

Sounds very much like many monogamous marriages. How did this start?

John and Louise had an open relationship and had experimented with swinging.

"It just left us feeling a little empty," says John. "When the attraction started between Eric and Louise, it really proved to be more than just a sexual attraction. It was more of an emotional attachment. That appealed to myself and appealed to Louise and I think at that point, it appealed to Eric, although at that point he was confused. It morphed into what we were actually looking for."

So where's the problem? Here...

John, Louise and Eric formalized their relationship with a commitment ceremony in August 2010. "We exchanged rings, we had vows, we had a marriage in all the traditional senses, apart from a justice of the peace and apart from a priest. We had a moderator," says John. They plan on drawing up documents regarding custody of children and division of assets.

John, Louise and Eric's commitment ceremony could put them, and everybody who attended, in trouble because of a 120-year-old law and a small community of fundamentalist Mormons. "Based on the legal interpretation, everybody at the ceremony is liable for legal action," says John.

It is ridiculous that a law would deny consenting adults full marriage equality, the right to have a ceremony, and the right to simply be together as spouses. Someday, future generations will look back and wonder what the big deal was; why anyone would try to interfere in relationships between consenting adults.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Kardashian sisters got into it on Twitter when Kim's reply to a question raised red flags in Khloe's mind. Kimmy K was asked by @daisy_sara, "If you were stranded on a deserted island who is the one person you would take with you?"

There's nothing wrong with siblings wanting to be together, in whatever sense of the word that means. They are adults. People need to drop their prejudices against sibling relationships, consanguinamorous or otherwise.

A Quebec Court judge sentenced a man who had three children with his adult daughter to three years in prison Wednesday, saying the man betrayed the trust society places in fathers.

Which is...? He was not her custodial father. He did not raise her. She had a father, and it wasn't him. What were the exact charges? We aren't told. The headline calls it an "incest case" but the actual charges are not listed. If he raped her or abused her in any way, he should have been charged with those specific crimes.

Against her adoptive parents' advice, the woman tracked down her biological father at age 23 - and for the next 13 years, the two had a bizarre relationship the woman likened to being in a cult.

The finger-wagging love and sex police are out in force, spewing hateful prejudice about the relationship between Bobbi Kristina and Nick Gordon, who aren't even biologically or legally related.

Victor Gonzalez at miaminewtimes.com has apparently been doing some graverobbing in New Jersey (where genetic siblings are free to have sex without prosecution). How else could he write...

In New Jersey, Whitney Houston is spinning in her grave and violently vomiting over her own corpse, filling the oak casket to the brim. This is the posthumous reaction to news that Bobbi Kristina and her "adopted" brother, Nick Gordon, may be having an "incestuous" affair.

Everyone is making much of what should be nothing to them. Don't people have their own lives to live? Apparently not.

Gonzalez then goes over a brief history of musicians and their relationships.

Heralded as one of the finest German composers of all time, Johann Sebastian Bach could've snagged any Baroque music groupie with the flick of his conducting baton. Instead, he opted for Maria Barbara Bach, his second cousin.

Why do these people interfere when people who aren't cheating find comfort with each other? Stop with the jealousy and judgment. Drop your bigotries and realize that just because it isn't something you would admit to wanting, these people enjoy each other. Let them be!

Another promising discussion forum for consanguinamory is picking up steam. Personality/philosophy clashes between the moderators at the Porn Free Incest discussion forum has led some of the active participants at PFI to join the newer forum, which is also porn-free. If you join, which I do encourage, the rules state you need to introduce yourself. So pick a username if you don't have one already and go join.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

There has been much good stuff to read relating to polyamory at goodmenproject.com One recent article by Micah Schneider is an example: "Polyamory: Nature or Choice?"

Why are some people polyamorous and others aren’t? Is polyamory something that you do, or is it something that you are?

My answer is simple. Yes.

The longer answer is not so simple.

Schneider explains...

I’m a gender and queer activist, and in those circles, I’ve often described myself as a poly, kinky, bisexual pro-feminist male. Since I was being specific, I should have said I was cis male, but that’s not the point. Those things are not what I do, they are what I am. Who I am. They define me and how I look at the world. If I was suddenly single (Gods forbid!), I wouldn’t change that description to monogamous, vanilla, straight pro-feminist cis-male.

He then drops the f-bomb twice as he uses the word for its literal meaning. So if you can't handle that, you are warned.

As I usually do, I will point out that whether polyamory is natural or not is irrelevant to the fact that an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination. The Interwebs are not natural, and yet even bigots can read this... provided they are literate.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Experienceproject.com has reports and discussions from a diversity of people who could benefit from relationships rights, including full marriage equality. Melindagrace is a hotwife in her twenties who wonders why more people don't try what she has tried. Note that "hotwife" usually means a wife that is sexually involved with people other than her spouse, with her spouse's consent (and, often, to the spouse's delight and, sometimes, with the spouse's participation) It isn't for everyone, but is for some...

I have been a hotwife for 2 years and almost since very beginning it was more of a polyandry situation than just a lover and a hotwife. Over time it really get more serious between us until day come that him finally propose and move in with me and my husband to live.

The third person joined the relationship in much the same way monogamous relationships evolve. And like monogamous relationships, our marriage laws should accommodate these relationships so that all three people can be in a marriage, if that is what they want, whether both would be married to Melindagrace, or if they would all be married to each other.

My only wonder is why more hotwife couples don't try it. I know there are risks and there is fear. And polyandry is not for everyone.

But for us it really work and we are all a very happy family.

Some hotwife couples don't want another spouse, or don't want a roommate, or don't even want a steady. Others are worried about discrimination and even the law should they move a lover in. The hotwife thing can be done discreetly with a little more ease (away from home, for example) than being discreet with someone actually living with you. Judgmental family members and neighbors may try to interfere in any way they can, from disinheriting, to spreading gossip, to trying to limit someone's civic participation or employment, or their access to their own children.

Monday, March 12, 2012

If you are a participant in discussion forums targeted towards demographic groups, you can find or start discussions in which you can promote full marriage equality, a freedom to marry, or other relationship rights. If you do that, always free free to copy and paste the commentary I've offered on this blog, altering it as appropriate, or link to this blog. Cafemom.com has seen several discussions about polyamory and polygamy, but recently Anonymous kicked off a very interesting discussion under the heading of "Incest Anyone?"

I am not talking about abuse. I am talking about a sexual relationship between two consenting adults. Have any of you had such a relationship with a sibling/cousin/step-sibling/etc?

Later, Anonymous added...

My former step-brother and I used to make-out, fondle each other, and watch porn together when I was fifteen (he was about two months older than me). We never actually had intercourse though. Also, I have a mutual crush on one of my first cousins.

There were some of the typical "eew" responses, but some people actually answered the question.

So I started dating this girl, and she has a brother who is one of my best friends. Well a few nights ago me and my girlfriend where talking and she told me that her and her brother have masturbated each other in the past... two questions one do you think that this is incest and two how should I react to this?

Some of the responses were prejudiced against consanguinamory, but bitonside responded…

As part of growing up, some brothers and sisters or cousins (of similar ages) do explore and play. They grow out of it and develop normally, with no ill effects.

Some “grow out of it.” Others keep growing into it, and into each other.

That is not incest. Nor is it something to be worried about, unless there is a significant age gap, one person has power over another or one person is being forced into it.

Ezio returned to say…

thank you to bitonside I talked to her and a few things I miss heard her they stopped it a while ago, they are only a year apart and they only did it a couple of times when she was 13 and he was 14.

That is a very common thing and it shouldn’t be of concern to anyone.

Some people argue whether there has to be some form of intercourse for it to actually be incest; I don't think it matters. Whatever level of consensual affection siblings close in age have with each other, whatever it is called, should be up to them. If a person in the position of the question-asker can't handle whatever level of affection they currently have with each other, or what they did in the past, then he or she needs to step back from the relationship. However, if someone is going to rule out as a partner anyone who ever had consensual, affectionate or curious contact with a sibling's genitals, they will greatly reduce their pool of potential partners.

I'm ashamed and yet excited. I have feelings for a cousin of mine. I mean he's my first cousin -- my father's sister's son. I was not brought up with him -- I'm from Toronto (and) I moved here recently, so meeting him at 26 has been a shock. I find him absolutely perfect in every way and I know he's attracted to me.

That’s not anything to be ashamed about. It would be a shame to let the hang-ups of outsiders interfere.

I looked it up and I know it's legal to marry your first cousin here, but that doesn't mean people won't frown on it. I'd like to know what your readers think about this before I test it out on friends.

Why? Some readers think kissing before your wedding ceremony is wrong. Some think being attracted to people of the same gender is the worst thing ever.

Is it creepy or not?

Since I don’t know either one of these people, I can’t say whether it is creepy. But if it is, it isn’t because they are first cousins. There’s nothing creepy about that.

I care what you have to say but I really want to know how people would react to meeting two cousins who were dating.

I would say the same thing I would say to any adults happily dating: “Good for you and good luck. Oh, and if anyone gives you trouble, I will stand by your side.” Why try to interfere in the happiness of others? If someone wouldn’t date their own cousin, they don’t have to, but why tell others what to do? If Crazy About Him wants him, Crazy About Him should go get him.

HollywoodLife.com exclusively broke the shocking news that Whitney Houston‘s daughter, Bobbi Kristina Brown, was lip kissing her “adopted” 22-year-old brother, Nicholas Gordon in Georgia March 9, which led to a revelation that the pair are deeply involved in a romantic relationship and have been for several months.

What is shocking about two people who have been around each other falling in love?

However, family therapist Dr. Phil Dembo tells us this dynamic between the two — who have grown up in the same house for the past 10 years — is not acceptable, even if it is understandable.

What exactly is wrong with it? Notice, we don’t get an answer…

Whitney welcomed Nick into her home when he was a pre-teen and raised him as her own son, even though she never officially adopted him. Bobbi Kristina and Nick became so close, they even referred to each other as “brother” and “sister.”

You mean like some people in the same religious groups? Or close friends?

No real reason if given as to what the problem is with this relationship. There are many people out there in the same boat, having fallen in love with someone who was almost a member of the family before romance blossomed. But anti-consanguinamory prejudice even poisons people against relationships where there is no biological or prior legal relation. Where exactly was the boundary crossed? What if Houston took him in only five years ago? Four years ago? Would it be OK then?

Let the young lovers have each other. Haven’t they been through enough without outsiders trying to deny them comfort, happiness, and love? All that matters is how they treat each other and feel about each other.

I don't know Carroll, but many people attracted to women (such as heterosexual men) fantasize about having sex with a mother and daughter, and some of those fantasies involve it happening as a threesome. As with any fantasies, some people do not share it or are turned off by the thought.

I’ve never quite understood the twin fantasy that some men harbor, and others (Hugh Hefner, anyone?) actually live. I mean, is it really a turn-on to think of sisters getting it on?

For some, yes.

Incest is a bad thing, not a sexy thing, right? At least that’s what I’ve always thought.

Why? Why would any consensual sex be a bad thing? She references the lingerie ads.

Along those same lines, when I read about a mother-and-daughter striptease show (via Café Mom), I wondered why. Why? Why? Why? Why? And who. As in, who, exactly, would pay money to go see a mom and daughter strip next to each other?

And yet. There’s a mother-daughter duo in Australia who star in a striptease show together. And apparently they have an audience.

Why is this so surprising? Why is it better if two women who were strangers before working together dance together?

Mia Robinson and daughter Kiki Vidis are a mother-and-daughter striptease show. Can you say ew?

Okay, so far two women don't like it. So what?

I try to be open minded about all things sexual and I certainly want to raise both of my children in such a way, too. But I draw the line at ever dancing nude on stage with them. What would that tell an impressionable young woman in her early 20s?

That dancing is an honest way to make a living? That her body isn't something of which to be ashamed?

Is that really a career path I would want to see my daughter pursue?

There are many honest jobs people might not want their children to have. It doesn't mean something is wrong with the job, or having a parent work alongside their grown child in that job.

Normally, Ms Robinson works in administration and said that while some friends may have fallen by the wayside she has made a lot more since she started working in the erotica business.

"I'm a normal person, nine to five, Monday to Friday and then, occasionally, I do a show with my daughter and it's a little different, I guess."

It is her choice.

Several responses to the article were positive, including men saying yes, this was a turn-on.

An adult, regardless of gender, should be free to perform with any other adult. Not everyone is going to like it; those who don't like it don't have to watch it. We have got to stop telling women who they can't work with and what they can't do with their own bodies.

The article begins by talking about what a lovely and loving couple they are.

What makes this scene so disturbing, however, is the fact that Danielle and Nick are half brother and sister.

That is only "disturbing" to prejudices that should be done away with.

“The only way to explain it is to say that the day I met Nick, I felt I had finally met my soul-mate. Everything clicked. I would marry him if I could.”

They should have the freedom to marry.

Nick says...

“All I know is that for the first time in my life, I feel I belong. I should feel ashamed of it, but I don’t.”

It is ridiculous that they are denied not on the freedom to marry, but to love each other in all senses of the word.

“Legally we can still kiss, still hold hands, still carry on together, we just can’t have intercourse.”

Short of installing a CCTV camera in their home to ensure no law is broken again, we shall just have to take their word for it.

That's one reason it is ridiculous to criminalize sex between consenting adults.

According to research, first published in the British Medical Journal in 1995, by Dr Maurice Greenberg and Professor Roland Littlewood, 50 per cent of people seeking post-adoption counselling “experienced strong sexual feelings in reunions” with their real family.

A real family is the one that raised you with love. A better term is bio or genetic family.

“People may be disgusted by what we have done. People may say we are morally wrong and should have stayed away from each other, but we don’t want to. I can’t imagine life without Nick now.”

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

I’m sure it happens every day, but did it happen in this case? James Kakooza, a former health care state minister in Uganda, was in court recently as he and a woman, Enid Tuhirirwe, claiming to be his wife were in dispute over a divorce. She is claiming adultery and cruelty. From allafrica.com…

Her side…

Tuhirirwe and Kakooza entered a customary marriage in June 2008 in traditional Kinyankole ceremony in which they were given a lot of property as gifts that she wants court to split equally between them.

As far as the adultery…

She claims her problems with Kakooza started when she demanded to know the father of a baby that one of Kakooza's own daughters had given birth to in 2009. She told court that suspicions of incest were obvious when Kakooza and his 21 year old daughter concealed the identity of the father from her and the next thing was seeing them sharing the same bed.

As you know, I support the right of Kakooza and his adult daughter to be together, if that is what they want. I do not think cheating is a good idea, though.

He says…

In his defence, the former minster denies entering a customary marriage with Tuhirirwe and claims she is related to him as a friend and not as a wife.

Many of these writers publish through various Indie Ebook sellers such as Smashwords, Bookstrand, and All Romance Ebooks (that goes to the page where one should be able to find the anthology my first published piece of erotica is in, but alas, you have to sign in to erotica). These publishers have been pressured by Paypal (and don’t forget credit card companies) to remove certain erotic works or lose their account.

Nice, huh?

No matter what your opinion on “icky” writing might be, and I know mine is convoluted and confused due to my history, it’s hard not to worry about where this latest round of censorship might lead, if folks don’t speak up.

It's scary.

Many of these “banned” works are written by women for women. And it’s pretty obvious that women’s sexuality is scaring the s--- out of folks.

You have to wonder about people who act as though women don't or shouldn't like to think about or read about sex. Sounds like they are doing it wrong.

The erotica & erotic romance community is understandably up-in-arms. They’re banding together – and have a formed The Banned Writers, “coalition of writers, readers, publishers, and editors who have come together to fight against the economic censorship of erotic fiction by non-governmental organizations and entities who believe they have the power and the right to determine what adult men and women should be allowed to read.”

Just to be clear, those businesses all support literary depictions of serial killing, mass murder, genocide, and the like. You can think the fiction is disgusting and still understand that not everyone wants to read the same things, and that's okay. Free expression is good.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

More and more people are becoming familiar with polyamory and understanding that it is a good thing, not something to fear. omapäinen tyttö has a blog called Willful Girl. In the first posting, from this past January, she writes…

I'm a recently 28 year old lady from the Chicago area. I'm in an open marriage and involved in the BDSM scene (as a switch). I identify as "queer." I value honesty… I'm mostly happy with where I am, although I still struggle quite a bit with how I got here and how I appreciate this happiness based on previous unhappiness.

All that being said, I've started telling people at work when I spend time with "my other boyfriends." (For any of them that are actually reading this, yes, I know that's a bit more committed than we actually are. Don't worry. I'm not pushing for that terminology. It just happens to be a term I've found that makes straight people's forehead's wrinkle less than things like "f--- buddy" or "friends with benefits" or "guy I occasionally date/have sex with." And since I am also a fan of brevity, I go with what words are already there.)

For example, if I'm sending texts with one of said other boyfriends and somebody asks me what I'm smiling about, I'll say, "oh, just one of my other boyfriends saying something funny." It's a momentary pause where they try to figure out whether I'm being serious or facetious (it's honestly a fine line sometimes with me, I can be quite the smart-ass), but then usually there are no follow-up questions, no awkward "but you're also married! That can't be possible" type discussions. Just, "oh, you have other boyfriends" and then move on.

There’s always a risk in coming out that someone will respond with bigotry, whether with insults, rumors, rejection, even physical attacks. Family may disinherit you. Neighbors may shun you. Coworkers and employers may get you fired or ostracized. Sometimes there’s just no avoiding that. Other times, how coming out is handled can make a difference. When we gently help people to drop their prejudices, rather than taking an approach that causes them to cling tightly to their position as a knee-jerk response, they can benefit even more than we do. Being bigoted is not a good way to live.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Thanks for your continued visits, comments, and support (no, I don’t accept financial support and this is not a plea for any). You are helping to advance relationship rights, gender equality, and full marriage equality. Thank you!

There's been so much I've wanted to blog lately that I haven't due to life keeping me busy. I need to do some desk clearing, so you may see an increase in short entries that are little more than links to something I thought you might want to check out for yourself. As you know, I like to offer commentary, but if the choice is pointing you to something worthwhile or noteworthy without my commentary, or not posting the info at all, I think the shorter entry is better.

I’m always looking for help around here. If you want to send me something you’ve written to publish here, perhaps anonymously, or even join in as an official contributor, I’d like to hear from you: fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Nothing indicates immorality in their actions. Or least nothing immoral by a reasonable standard of that term. Sure, perhaps we can say it is "wrong" that they might upset their family and so on, but that's hardly a basis for moral action. Simply being gay, discarding monotheism and marrying a person of a different race upsets plenty of families, too, but these are not immoral actions in themselves.

What troubles me, concerning this gentleman and his twin, is that there are possible legal ramifications for their relationship.

This is a same-gender relationship that is still denied marriage equality in places like Canada, the US, and other places where some same-gender marriages are legal.

Rather, we should be appalled at the fact that these two consenting, monogamous and loving individuals need to check laws in order to not be prosecuted. That this still occurs is terrible, but confirms yet again that individual liberty requires constant engagement, from all sides. We overcame this backward thinking, this idea that consensual adult love requires state permission, with miscegenation and we've almost done it for homosexuality. There's no reason I can see for not bringing consensual incest into this bracket of sexual relations that require defence, too.

Friday, March 2, 2012

One of the reasons those who argue against the congsanguineous freedom to marry (or even have sex) or the polygamous freedom to marry use for denying such freedoms is that polygamous marriage is illegal and consanguinamory (consensual incest) is illegal. This argument is circular and jurisdictional.

Interracial marriage used to be illegal in some places. It was the laws that were wrong, not interracial marriage. The same goes for same-gender marriages.

Common arguments against consanguinamory include potential genetic problems to biological children, but it is a flawed argument that, even if it was valid, would only apply to some consanguinamorous relationships, not any one in which there isn't both a functioning female reproductive system and a functioning male reproductive system involved, or in which the lovers have decided not to have biological children together.

Common arguments against polygamy include divided parental attention and resources. But not all people who marry have children together. What if they don't want children? And people don't need to get married to have children. It is legal and common today for one person to have children with more than one partner; they just aren't allowed to all be married at the same time. How does that make sense? And what of monogamous marriages like that of the Duggars ("19 Kids and Counting")? It is legal for them to keep having children together even though there are only two of them. How is that better than, say, two fathers and two mothers who have the same number of kids together as the Duggars, or fewer? The children of such a group marriage have four parents, instead of just two.

Yes, there are laws that deny full marriage equality, and those laws are what's wrong, not marriage equality. There are real people who are being hurt right now by such laws. Those laws belong on the scrap heap of history. We're going to have equality. The questions are: 1. when and 2. will you be on the loving, winning side, or the losing side that tries to stand in the way of happiness?

Thursday, March 1, 2012

The writing was on the wall when a new website dealing with Genetic Sexual Attraction popped up and activity plummeted at Barbara Gonyo’s GeneticSexualAttraction.com forum. Gonyo is the godmother of the GSA community and her website was the go-to site for people looking to anonymously ask for help or find community, and for researchers. It didn’t help that several important voices who have experienced GSA recently pulled out of participating on Gonyo’s website; as far as I know, they haven’t contributed at SOAR.

This site has accomplished so much and now with all the new technology, it will grow even more. This forum is almost ten years old, and it's time to expand! On average the forum get's 15 to 20 thousand visitors a month. The format that is currently being used can only allow 20 people to be on at one time. It is not enough for the amount of people coming at one time seeking support.

Sounds like the announcement is about more people being able to participate, right?

In addition, this forum enables anyone to post, and though it's beneficial for those needing immediate support, it also lacks the security necessary to minimize trolls, perverts and unwanted advertisement to derail the original goal of the GSA forum.

Okay...

For these reasons and more I have decided to close down the existing GSA forum and support a NEW forum that will minimize the issues the current one has. The process of converting to the new forum will happen in phases.

And here it comes...

Because of the cost and time necessary to provide a safe, quality forum- the new forum will be accessed fully when members pay a small yearly tuition. Casual browsers on the Internet will not be able to access or view the posts, and certainly not have the opportunity to comment. The cost to subscribe to the new forum will be $30.00 a year. This is a reduced rate especially for those who are making the transfer from the old site to the new one. On May 1st, 2012, the price will go up to $40.00 a year.

There already is an associated private group on Facebook for discussion away from "trolls, perverts and unwanted advertisement." I fear a paywall for the GSA forum is the death knell.

Yes, such a subscription will help weed out trouble. BUT… how many people want a financial charge in their records associated with Genetic Sexual Attraction??? Aside from the cost, there are many reasons someone wouldn’t, including the fact that acting on GSA is still (stupidly) illegal in many places, and even more widely stigmatized.

Another reason is that some people experiencing GSA have existing vows to others that precludes sexual activity and some other forms of socializing with additional people. If someone is struggling and looking for helpful information, they’re not going to want their partners(s) stumbling across financial transactions associated with GSA before they themselves can get somewhat of a handle on the situation and how to bring it up to their partner(s).

Be warned…

The existing forum will also be locked on May, 1, 2012. This means that after May 1st no one will be able to post or respond to posts. The work to archive the old forum will begin as to not lose the valuable information.

Another, ongoing issue….

My purpose and goal in the GSA forum originally was to help people and prevent them from entering into a sexual relationship with their new found relatives. It has always been my belief that the sexual part of GSA can eventually kill the relationship and cause much damage to families.

There are some in the GSA community who agree with this. However, there are other people in happy, lasting GSA relationships that include lovemaking. One size does not fit all, and people need to know this IS a viable option, and in some cases, the best option, and have access to people who can help with advice who are not going to impose their personal sexual morals on others. Both sides have been present, with tension, on Gonyo’s forums, though the nature of the forum has lent itself more to the sex-negative side.

I’m afraid the pending changes will further ostracize the people in ongoing consanguinamorous relationships and hinder people looking for help; that the communication will be less free (opinion-wise) and the diversity will be diminished.

I understand that while there are free prefab forum services out there, running a quality forum can be expensive, and that there are only so many options to deal with that. I understand that it is the right of the owner or any forum (especially one that has been presented for free to the user) to close it down or change the terms and conditions of use. That understanding, however, does not diminish my disappointment.

If you want to talk with someone, you can write me a fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com or find me on Facebook. I might be able to put you touch with people who can give you helpful advice if I don’t have the right advice myself.

There are some other places for people interested in discussing Genetic Sexual Attraction. As always, use at your own risk (list is after the jump)…

Full Marriage Equality

About This Blog

I argue for marriage equality. By that I mean that society and all local, state, federal, and international laws, institutions, and programs should recognize any marriage registered by any persons without restrictions on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The global definition of marriage should be as follows: "The uniting of consenting individuals in a witnessed ceremony."

We believe everyone has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of birth or sexual orientation.

The Fine Print

The focus of this blog is consenting adults. This blog does not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; it does advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality for adults. This blog condemns rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, and frowns in the general direction of cheating. This blog exists mainly to evaluate information and direct others to information about current events; it does not provide medical, therapeutic, legal, financial, or cooking advice. This blog links to other sites for informational purposes; it does not necessarily support everything at those links.